Why doesn't the House of Lords move to Brussels? RICHARD LITTLEJOHN wonders why the unelected peers are so determined to betray the majority of people they are paid to represent

Not for the first time, it fell to Norman Tebbit to speak for Britain. Why was it, he asked his fellow members of the Lords, that they were elevating the rights of foreigners over those of the British people?

‘It seems to me the first duty of this Parliament, of the United Kingdom, is to care for the interests of the citizens of this kingdom,’ he said.

‘If we are to be concerned about the rights of anybody after Brexit to live anywhere on this continent of Europe, it should be concern for the rights of British people to live freely and peacefully in those other parts of Europe. Why is everybody here today so excited about an amendment which looks after foreigners and not the British?’

It’s a pity Norman Tebbit isn’t a few years younger. We could have put him in charge of the Brexit negotiations. At least he’d speak for Britain

Fair point. But judging by the reaction in the chamber, you’d have thought Norman had advocated rounding up all foreign nationals living in Britain and deporting them en masse, preferably at gunpoint. His perfectly accurate use of the word ‘foreigners’ had some of the more sensitive Lords and Ladies gasping for breath and hissing their disapproval at this ghastly racist in their midst.

Lord Skinhead of Chingford was, of course, merely questioning the demand that before triggering Article 50, Theresa May gives a cast-iron guarantee that all EU citizens currently living in Britain will be allowed to stay after Brexit.

Actually, she’s already tried to do that in exchange for a reciprocal assurance that the same will apply to UK citizens living in Europe. But she was knocked back by Angela Merkel, who refuses to enter any kind of negotiation until the Brexit process is formally under way.

Share this article

It has become almost compulsory for everyone to agree that those EU nationals who have settled here keep the right to stay.

And it’s true that the majority of EU citizens who have arrived legally over the past few years make a valuable contribution to our economy.

But could the same be said of some of the less desirable elements who have moved to Britain? The Eastern European beggars and pickpockets littering the streets of our cities, for instance, or the assorted criminals we can’t deport because of the European yuman rites racket?

The Remoaners don’t want to talk about them, naturally. And, frankly, the Lords aren’t really that bothered about the rights of EU citizens living in Britain.

It is merely a convenient device to try to disrupt, and ideally prevent, Britain’s departure from the EU. They hold the democratically expressed wishes of more than 17 million voters in contempt and will do everything they can to frustrate the result of the referendum.

The debate on the amendment to the crucial Brexit legislation was far more bad-tempered than most sessions in the House of Lords

Why else would they want to force Mother Theresa to declare her negotiating position in advance?

No one in their right mind shows their cards before bidding in a poker game. Not unless they want to get taken to the cleaners.

No self-respecting union leader or businessman would offer up one-sided concessions before negotiations had even begun.

What the Remoaners refuse to accept is that Britain holds a winning hand. We buy more from the EU than they buy from us.

The Europeans realise that, which is why they are going to bluff for as long as possible. Can you imagine any politician in Europe behaving like the Remain camp in Britain?

Where’s the European equivalent of Project Fear, warning of the dire consequences of losing access to the lucrative British market?

Where are the apocalyptic warnings from the European Bank that millions of jobs will be lost and the EU will go into financial meltdown unless Brussels can strike a favourable deal with the UK?

Where are the demands in Berlin that Mrs Merkel offers British manufacturers free trade in exchange for BMW, Mercedes and Audi being allowed to continue selling cars tariff-free in Britain?

Where’s Holland’s answer to Anna Soubry, touring the TV and radio studios in the Netherlands, complaining tearfully that the Dutch economy is doomed unless they give Britain everything she wants?

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST'S 'GAY MOMENT'

The remake of Beauty And The Beast is to feature Disney’s first ‘exclusively gay moment’.

Why?

It’s not as if we’re short of gay role models on screen, either in Hollywood or on TV. From movies such as Brokeback Mountain to just about every British soap opera and comedy, homosexuality is well represented.

So there really is no need for Disney to ‘make a statement’. We’re not still living in the Seventies, when Dick Emery camping it up on the BBC was about as close as you got.

Oh, you are awful, but I like you!

Why insert gay characters in children’s stories like Beauty And The Beast, just for the sake of it? We already live in an age when even four-year-olds have to be taught about ‘alternative lifestyles’.

Kids grow up fast enough as it is. Why does everything have to be sexualised? And, no, I don’t just mean homosexualised, I mean writing any kind of gratuitous sex into children’s entertainment.

Where’s it all going to end?

Now that Disney seems to think that anything goes, I’m dreading what will happen when they get round to remaking Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs.

Hi-ho!

Why aren’t French hardliners marching down the Champs Elysees, smashing windows and setting fire to police cars, demanding that Paris must agree unconditionally to Britain’s terms so they can carry on exporting their cheeses, wines and meat? I don’t recall the European Parliament passing a motion forcing Jean-Claude Drunker to make any concessions to Britain before the formal Brexit talks start.

And unless I’ve missed something, how many former German Chancellors, French Presidents and Italian Prime Ministers have openly sided with Britain, in the same way that Blair and Major have backed Europe against their own people?

No, all we’ve heard from across the Channel are threats to punish us, to cripple us economically, to make our lives hell once we are stupid enough to leave the EU.

Yet the overwhelming instinct of our political class is to bind the hands of our negotiators, to appease, compromise and, ultimately, surrender — with the unelected House of Lords acting as a pro-Brussels fifth column, determined to betray the majority of the people they are paid to represent.

Are they setting themselves up as the EU’s Vichy government? Maybe they should move to Brussels.

In wartime, they’d have been put up against a wall and shot. In peacetime, they should be put out to pasture, for good.

It’s a pity Norman Tebbit isn’t a few years younger. We could have put him in charge of the Brexit negotiations. At least he’d speak for Britain.

Fly-past? No, it's a military tattoo...

It was only a matter of time before the RAF fell to the ‘trans’ brigade. But it was the statement justifying making women in the air force wear trousers instead of skirts which intrigued me:

‘There are concerns that by forcing RAF personnel to wear skirts it’s discriminatory towards a variety of people, such as those with tattoos and transgender people.’

Hang on a minute. Since when did ‘those with tattoos’ become a vulnerable minority? From what I can make out, those of us without tattoos are in the minority these days.

Since when did ‘those with tattoos’ become a vulnerable minority? From what I can make out, those of us without tattoos are in the minority these days, writes Richard Littlejohn

How would RAF staff with tattoos be disadvantaged by wearing skirts?

Surely the whole point of having tattoos is displaying them.

Anyway, how many RAF women — or transgenders, for that matter — have tattoos on their legs?

I know that sailors have traditionally favoured anchors on their arms. Do the RAF go in for fighter planes on their calves?

And if they do, why would they want to cover them up?

Fine pair of Spitfires, show ’em off, show ’em off.

Last week, I wrote that I was having trouble coming up with a funnier nickname for the new Met Commissioner than Cressida Dick. I’ve since heard from a number of readers with their own suggestions.

Most were unsuitable for a family newspaper and some of them could get me arrested.

Best of the bunch came from Mike Robinson, who thought Cressida could be the love-child of the late Jack Warner.

Dick Of Dock Green.

The police say they are so short-staffed they have been unable to apprehend tens of thousands of suspects, including hundreds of murderers and sex offenders, more than 1,000 of them wanted for rape.

Perhaps if they didn’t spend so much time and money investigating ‘historic’ sex offences, they might be able to catch some criminals who — unlike Jimmy Savile — are still alive.